Crookbond Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Making what up ? The allegation was already made by someone else and had appeared in the media. I just reiterated it. Not everything has to be appended with a caveat that it is an allegation, it is implicit many a time. For example, it is frequently claimed that Congress was involved in 1984 riots, which has never been formally proved in courts either. If someone writes that "George Bush is a war criminal" - it is obviously an allegation. If everything which has not been proved in a court of law has to be appended with caveats, then all conversations on this message board will become extremely pedantic and tedious. The title of this very thread is also an allegation, as it has not been proved in a court of law. You are passing of an allegation by someone else as a fact. Making things up.
Crookbond Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence. You cannot say something as lie if u don't know the truth. I m sure seedhi will take back his words if the incident us not proved. you do know that what u say can be used against u. Same can be said for nist of the discussions. pls take it lightly. Presence of an allegation isn't truth either.
Detonator Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Presence of an allegation isn't truth either. if there is an allegation it isn't a lie either. :sherlock:
Crookbond Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 if there is an allegation it isn't a lie either. :sherlock: I agree but that wasn't the point. Passing an allegation as a fact is a lie.
seedhi Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 You are passing of an allegation by someone else as a fact. Making things up.No, I was just repeating the allegation. Nothing was made up.
Crookbond Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 No' date=' I was just repeating the allegation. Nothing was made up.[/quote'] You never mentioned it was an allegation. Hence, made up.
seedhi Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 You never mentioned it was an allegation. Hence' date=' made up.[/quote']I don't need to mention every allegation I reiterate explicitly as an allegation. It is implicit. Just like the title of this thread. This is a message board for comments, not legal affidavits.
Filandering Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I don't need to mention every allegation I reiterate explicitly as an allegation. It is implicit. Just like the title of this thread. This is a message board for comments' date=' not legal affidavits.[/quote'] I am sorry. Your argument are void ab initio with the ad hominem intent.
asterix Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I am sorry. Your argument are void ab initio with the ad hominem intent. I'm sorry but you are behaving like this: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nit+picker
Raghav_12 Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 What Honorable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Ji Modi has to say about this?
diga Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 What Honorable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Ji Modi has to say about this? what do you or chipkali-ae-azam or the ilk have to say about Sahranpur riots ?
Filandering Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 What Honorable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Ji Modi has to say about this? Exactly. He is MMS part deux. With additional qualification being responsible for riots himself. Kejriwal would have flung himself to the site and with his band of merry men convinced the rioters to stop. Alas a leader which we need but don't deserve.
Crookbond Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I am sorry. Your argument are void ab initio with the ad hominem intent. Agree. I think Pankaj Singh bowled very well on the first day.
Crookbond Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I don't need to mention every allegation I reiterate explicitly as an allegation. It is implicit. Just like the title of this thread. This is a message board for comments' date=' not legal affidavits.[/quote'] If you build your argument based on an allegation, you have to substantiate your claim. It wasn't implicit that what you said was an allegation.
Raghav_12 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 what do you or chipkali-ae-azam or the ilk have to say about Sahranpur riots ? Good to see my reaction to events in country is as awaited and anticipated as reaction of the prime minister of the country. I am elated.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 What Honorable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Ji Modi has to say about this? Exactly. He is MMS part deux. With additional qualification being responsible for riots himself. Kejriwal would have flung himself to the site and with his band of merry men convinced the rioters to stop. Alas a leader which we need but don't deserve. MMS = Maun Modi Sarkar.
seedhi Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 If you build your argument based on an allegation' date=' you have to substantiate your claim. It [b']wasn't implicit that what you said was an allegation.It was. And nothing was made up. It was a reiteration of a widely reported allegation.
Crookbond Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 It was. And nothing was made up. It was a reiteration of a widely reported allegation. No it wasn't.
diga Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Good to see my reaction to events in country is as awaited and anticipated as reaction of the prime minister of the country. I am elated. If Modi condemns this, he will also have to condemn the sahranpur attackers too..
Recommended Posts